Big News.The Hacked Climate Documents — “ClimateGate”

Someone appears to have hacked into or leaked 1079 emails and 72 documents out of the Hadley Centre. It could take weeks of work to verify, but the sheer size and detail make it hard to argue that it is all faked. Steve McIntyre has confirmed emails he sent as being accurate. The only question is whether there are any fakes among a pattern of real ones. The blog world is alive with comments. It will be very interesting to watch this unfold and see the responses from Hadley, governments, and the mainstream media.

UPDATE: Response from Hadley “Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.” (Thanks VG)

If someone within Hadley has finally had enough of the deceit, the hidden data, and the unscientific practices, they’ve presumably decided enough is enough — and will not allow the world’s bureaucrats and bankers to keep exploiting science for their own profits.

If so, all credit to them for taking such a big risk.

“FOIA said: November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”

Phil Jones (is reported to have said)
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.”

And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre. And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia

And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain…you get to see how they “shape” the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy.

you get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it’s stunning all very stunning. You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect.

I don’t know that its real..
But the CRU code looks real”

I’ve put up this thread because it’s such a hot topic to discuss. Please share the pieces you found the most interesting, or thoughts about the matter here.

The full large file is available for download from The file is available for download here. here.

Ultimately, Phil Jones and Michael Mann and others are public servants, so nothing bar personal details should be out of bounds. If they were working (as a scientist should) to try to understand our climate and they had acted in an honest, statesmanlike and transparent manner, there would be no regrets if their emails were made public.

UPDATE: Fixed that download link. Thanks Davblo.

Thanks: Cheers to Kerry M, Charles Bourbaki and W.G. who were the first to notify me of this.

137 comments to Big News.The Hacked Climate Documents — “ClimateGate”

At Lucia’s, Steve McIntyre has confirmed the validity of his emails in the Hadley Hack. So some emails are genuine, but others may be false and inserted in amongst the genuine ones. So remain sceptical for the time being.

guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…

What a turn of events. I doubt the outcome is as interesting as the initial responses make out, but how embarrasing if the release is true Charles. I recently had a chain of emails go public without my intention and the reality is that the actual content was meaningless, but the outcry was significant and at the end of the day made my life quite uncomfortable for a week or so… plenty of cringing.

Sad thing about emails, in the old days you could make a coffee and say “That D*&$head so and so” and get away with it:)

CRU DATA HACKED, A THOUSAND EMAILS REVEALED, POSTED AT The Air Vent and Lucia and Climate Audit.

Please pass this around a bunch of people copied the files. The comments at Wattsupwiththat and at the Air Vent is where they were first leaked, via somebody’s server. Server chosen was in Russia, people speculating it was internal leak, not a hack, due to the nature of info in Email headers.

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

As far as I’m concerned we should not indirectly encourage hacking by making use of evidence that was obtained illegally. I understand that there has been decidedly ungentlemanly behaviour in the past but we are the ones who would like to see the game played fairly, so we have the burden of setting an example.

As far as I can see no one from the sceptic side encouraged the hacking. Indeed it looks more like an inside leak. Which also may or may not be legal. However the files are well and truly out and like a new-born baby there is little to be gained in ignoring it or trying to put it back in again.

These documents will be read by many thousands and nothing is going to stop that happening. If they are false (or some of them have are) then the person responsible should be prosecuted. If they are true, it doesn’t prove or disprove anything about global warming, SST changes, the LIA or the MWP etc. It merely raises some very serious issues of probity amongst these particular scientists and their acolytes (such as Tamino).

Whoever exposed this could have saved literaly trillions of dollars that would have been wasted with cap and trade, or ETS. That saves tens of millions of lives that would have been lost due to poverty and malnutrition caused by destroying the developed worlds economies. If it’s true, then he or she is a genuine hero.

Tel (#65): “… we are the ones who would like to see the game played fairly”.

While I understand the sentiment here, and admire your ethics Tel, I have come to the view that this is no game. It is a serious fight, with very drastic consequences if the enemy wins. And they are, indeed, an enemy, make no mistake. Sometimes I wonder whether subterfuge and other dirty tactics are justified.

The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”

“Have you alerted police”

“Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken.”

Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.

“Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn’t do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago.”

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing “hiding the decline”, and Jones explained what he was trying to say….

Expect the worst hope for the best. Anyone really shocked? malcontent turnball is a great example of how NOT to handle this potential CO2 bomb. Timing sucks and we could look as bad as mal if we seem to keen to sniff the scent of a kill…. Might be just as well to keep the focus on the facts , this could be a red (cheap pun intended) herring caught at ulluru..

By resorting to dirty tricks we are essentially putting forward a no-confidence vote in the Scientific Method, and a no-confidence vote in the practice of evidence based reasoning. If the content of the emails quoted on WUWT is genuine, then it would seem that the AGW side of the debate gave up on evidence based reasoning some time ago, and started to manufacture their own evidence. Once our side of the fence start doing the same thing then who would be left doing the job properly?

No one.

I hold very few articles of faith, but one of them is that the spirit of scientific enquiry does not depend on dirty tricks to continue. If that’s all there was to it then it would have collapsed into nothingness long ago.

Also, from a tactical point of view, we call ourselves skeptics which means not jumping to conclusions about anything. Doubt is your friend. There will be plenty of media whores who whip this for all it’s worth, so let them. It belongs in the political arena where dirty tricks have always standard fare, that’s not my job to fan those flames, I’ll leave that work to those most skilled at it.

For those wanting a copy, whilst the Russian .ru server link is dead, there are torrents available on the net now (with ‘white hot connection speed’). If you know what Im talking about and have P2P software, just Google “FOI2009.zip torrent” and you’ll find heaps of torrent files.

I want these Hadley scammers to answer to the people, so download the files, look through them and make up your own mind. Due to the sheer volume of data, Ive barely skimmed the surface, so I wont pass judgment just yet. But the language used, the level of depth and detail in some emails, make me hard to believe that this could be faked. Indeed a lie is best hidden between two truths, so maybe there is some manipulation, but on first impressions I wouldn’t be saying so.

I just hope the mainstream media run with this story – but we all know what the answer will be there.

Apparently not hacked – that is the view by looking over nearly 500 comments on WUWT. An inside job it appears. Apparently Real Climate etc have shut up shop also. Why? Because their names are on those emails! Love it. Matty

Anyone else notice the poll at ninemsn – “do you believe humans are to blame for global warming”. Around 40% have said no. Was that expected? I have felt a splat moment coming up for a while now. This could be it. Matty

Lets see if they get what they were wishing on all those who brought them into question.
Its remarkable that those who have had their wages paid by the likes of you and me would be so blatant in their behavior. lets hope all this climate communism now finally goes away and we are left to live in freedom and peace!

Please guys, drop this one and work the science. Play to the ball, not the man. This stuff is for the tabloids and gossip columns, we can do better.

Tel,
Most of the time I’m in complete agreement with you, but this time I think you are wrong.

What the emails are showing IF they turn out to be accurate, is that it’s never been about “the science.” The problem is we’ve always been innocently wanting to argue science, but that’s difficult if the “other side” is using every means at their disposal to block access to data, methodology and code.

That said, it’s always possible that the whole thing is a very elaborate hoax, but right now there’s no “denials” coming from the AGW side. They’re as quiet as they were with the Briffa Yamal fiasco. A topic also addressed in some of the emails.

Just a couple of things. First, your Megaupload link is broken (it has the right link in it, but a lot of other stuff too). Second, I write for the Examiner as the Cheyenne Green Living Examiner. Don’t think of it as “media” or journalism in the real sense of the word. It’s more like glorified blogging, really.

Anyway, this is huge news. One San Francisco Examiner said that these scientists are basically like “rogue cops” who deserve punishment, but that this evidence won’t kill global warming.

He’s an idiot. Global warming alarmism is done for because this scandal involves every major scientist involved in the Gorebot debate. All of them.

From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

I randomly/haphazardly looked at a few emails. I found the following interesting excerpt:

From email 1138995069.txt: we are having trouble to express the real message of the reconstructions – being
scientifically sound in representing uncertainty , while still getting the crux of the
information across clearly. It is not right to ignore uncertainty, but expressing this
merely in an arbitrary way (and as a total range as before) allows the uncertainty to swamp
the magnitude of the changes through time . We have settled on this version (attached) of
the Figure which we hoe you will agree gets the message over but with the rigor required
for such an important document.

Clearly, the author was much more interested in getting the message across than in communicating the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He did not want “the uncertainty to swamp the magnitude of the changes through time.” However, if the uncertainty is larger than the magnitude of the changes, there is no signal. The data is all noise and no signal and should be reported as such. Clearly, the science was not a concern. It was the preconceived message that assumed overwhelming importance over the truth. This goes way beyond a mere appearance of “a very elaborate hoax” and rises to nothing less than a scientific fraud of staggering proportions.

If the hacked files are ultimately found to be genuine, the case is closed. We are fighting not science but a world wide conspiracy to take over the world’s economies by the UN and a group of very willing co-conspirators. They really do not mean well. Their intentions are worse than our wildest imaginations. They wish to enslave us all by whatever means necessary.

The really sleazy part of it all is that many, if not most, of the co-conspirators are simply going after research grants. They feel forced to do so because governments have tied up almost all “research” funds and hand them out to serve political goals rather than scientific or technological goals. They would be serving science much better by refusing to do research and go flip burgers for a living. Since they don’t they are as guilty as their so called leaders, of a theft of wealth unequaled in the history of man.

I believe this constitutes a crisis and pending catastrophe that eclipses climate change and a 100 year warming of a few degrees by many orders of magnitude. WW III would have been a dance in the park by comparison.

Some important excerpts to check (for veracity and context):
1107454306 – “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
1109021312 – “Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !”
1210341221 – “2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this.”
1212073451 – “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”
1228330629 – “If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all. This legislation is different from the FOI”
1089318616 – “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !” 1092418712 – “Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.”
0876437553 – “I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.”
1106338806 – “Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.“ 0843161829 – “I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. ”
1053461261 – “The various papers apparently in production, regardless of their individual emphasis or approaches, will find their way in to the literature and the next IPCC can sift and present their message(s) as it wishes., but in the meantime , why not a simple statement of the shortcomings of the BS paper as they have been listed in these messages and why not in Climate Research?”
1254108338 – “So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.”
1114025310 – “Ch 4 has swallowed this hook, line and sinker and it is really a Ch 6 issue. Ch 6 wasn’t even aware of it. Can’t decide who on Ch 4 knew about it as Oerlemans isn’t there and the Swiss Glacier people didn’t know about the paper 2 weeks ago when I saw them. I like the curve as does Mike Mann, but its not for any scientific reason.” 1106322460 – Trying to get Saiers ousted from GRL
1098472400 – “This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.”

before the dancing on emperor al`s, krudd and pennys graves commences,NB, these people ain`t likely to be put to sleep quietly. This ain`t just a group of well intended if passionate gullible geek do gooders, the enemy are driven by frightfully powerful forces, political doctrines naked Greed ( CFR and The Bilderberg society are worth a look)that have been working on Global governance for over 50 years of which the current climate CO2N is only a MEANS. apropos the Hadley gift, fools rush in….. but if this is kosher, wrap it around their necks and squeeze the very life from them. then we dance.

Clearly, the author was much more interested in getting the message across than in communicating the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He did not want “the uncertainty to swamp the magnitude of the changes through time.” However, if the uncertainty is larger than the magnitude of the changes, there is no signal. The data is all noise and no signal and should be reported as such. Clearly, the science was not a concern. It was the preconceived message that assumed overwhelming importance over the truth. This goes way beyond a mere appearance of “a very elaborate hoax” and rises to nothing less than a scientific fraud of staggering proportions.

Lionell, I totally agree, from what I have read, and it’s already been confirmed about the Hack from CRU, the information is genuine. Sure, it’s “always” a possibility that some changes were done but it sounded like the Hacker got in and only had enough time to get this and got out..CRU had to have a complex password system. I’m hearing now that it was possibly done on the inside. Only time will tell and the “big” question is how much of “Truth” is CRU going to tell the World. There’s definitely going to be some “heavy duty explaining” to do from important people of the AGW crowd.

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it. This is a limited time offer, download now: ( – http://ftp.tomcity.ru – no longer works)

Having had training in fraud detection and financial audits, some posters believe this can be leaked from the inside to a russian IP address. The psychology behind people doing file damage that are insiders is similar to the behaviors of people that embezzle.
One of the scalding e-mails refers to the glee with which one insider commented on the death of John Daly a sceptic.

“The science is in” This refers to unity of feelings and not facts and data.

Tel: Please guys, drop this one and work the science. Play to the ball, not the man. This stuff is for the tabloids and gossip columns, we can do better

I’m afraid I’m confused since I see absolutely no relation to a sporting event here. If true, which seems likely, heads should roll. A hoax of this magnitude, likely to cause severe financial, and in some cases physical, distress to large portions of the world’s population, should be treated as a serious matter.

Don’t get me wrong… I am just as obsessed with establishing the scientifically-founded truth as the next guy. Heck, some of my best friends are scientists (though I don’t know that I’d want my daughter marrying one).

However, I am even more keen to see the world avoid descending into global totalitarianism, fuelled by the fear-mongers. Like you, I am not politically skilled. But this is primarily a political process, like it or not.

I have recently seen Lord Monckton waving Lindzen’s paper, claiming it as “proof” that the AGW hypothesis is false, and Leon Ashby waving Miskolczi’s paper, claiming it as “proof” that the AGW hypothesis is false. At the same time, as you know ther repeated calls to the unsceptics to provide evidence has been met with deafening silence.

Now, I would not claim that the science is irrelevant to the political process. It obviously does play a part. But equally obviously, it is not critical. The political process relates much more to emotional and other psychological factors.

I think we have seen some significant shifts lately, in public opinion around the climate change question(s). This is what is going to put the kibosh on the lunacy. And I’m afraid this is not based on scientific considerations.

A lot of things are contributing. Monckton’s speech, the video of which has gone viral, had some scientific references, but some of his claims are outrageous. It was mainly a political speech, the main thrust being an emotional appeal and persuasion via accomplished oratory and statesmanship. But if it has the effect of furthering the cause of preserving my freedom, I’m all for it.

Similarly, the Hadley Hack is unrelated to science. It will have an effect on public opinion, hopefully based on people’s emotional response to learning of the corruption within CRU. It will not resolve any of the scientific questions at all. So people will be having their attitudes towards AGW affected primarily by something other than science. But if it has the effect of furthering the cause of preserving my freedom, I’m all for it.

My son is attending a small but very reputable Midwest (USA) college. He just called me to “tell me about” this most delicious news. He had heard about it from friends at college. If word about the subject is spreading around this quickly at even the left leaning college venues, I predict the information is going to be a huge bombshell. I told him that we should all be watching to see whom runs for cover the fastest. With that we shall be able to ferret out the others. The timing of this “leak” is incredibly good.

All that will happen here, I suspect, is that this will get swept under the carpet, the media will ignore it, AGW alarmist bloggers will make mindless rebuttals to debunk it and the general public will never know about it. Very sad but that is currently the state of play. That’s how it’s been the whole time. Every time a new aspect of the Co2 theory is demolished, the media ignores it and keeps beating the catastrophe drums.

“All that will happen here, I suspect, is that this will get swept under the carpet, the media will ignore it”

I’m not so sure though I understand the frustration well. What amuses me is that in the same week that senior coalition members are being belittled as conspiracy freaks, a real one emerges. Enormous faith has been placed in these people by scientifically illiterate journalists, but the opinion base is eroding for sure. At what point do they jump clear? Either that or they are left stranded with it.

People become habituated to catastrophe and I think we are seeing that in the polling. It boils down to cultish adherence to doom, or have another beer. No second guessing what Australians were going to do in the end. Such issues have a “use by” and the window is closing on this one.

Already there are many writers who are avoiding sceptic science as if it will go away. Nick Minchin says “there are thousands of scientists who dispute the concept of man-made warming” and not even a follow up question! Interview ended. I sense they know it’s wobbling and this story could be an opportunity to exit this mess credibly, but it won’t be overnight.

From a political point of view, people like the Hon Tony Abbott, Senator Nick Minchin and Senator Steve Fielding should get good mileage out of these emails, and they don’t need to provide solid proof of authenticity, just use the emails to stir up plausible doubt against AGW arguments.

On 20 November 2009, emails and other documents, apparently originating from with the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

If real, these emails contain some quite surprising and even disappointing insights into what has been happening within the climate change scientific establishment. Worryingly this same group of scientists are very influential in terms of economic and social policy formation around the subject of climate change.

As these emails are already in the public domain, I think it is important that people are able to look through them and judge for themselves. Until I am told otherwise I have no reason to think the text found on this site is true or false. It is here just as a curiosity!

ChrisB, CRU has already stated that they have been Hacked. They closed down their Site earlier. I heard also Real Climate is shut down also but I’ve just checked and they were up and running with this story as a lead article..I’ve seen these files…they are very authentic with relation to topics and time period correlations. These files are still available at this time..here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89

“I could expect a round II coming up in the light of this. I wonder whether Tony Jones intends to get equally pushy against AGW supporters? ”

Perfectly good question that I reckon someone like Andrew Bolt will ask at some point. Surely it starts to get uncomfortable for people like Jones about now. Laurie Oakes seems similarly affronted by the idea there might be a credible alternate view going by his column. It’s scathing of Abbott, but I’d say he has his ear to the ground on this one, unlike Malcolm Turnbull.

This leak is all very exciting, but probably a distraction. While internal emails and files are all very titillating, I prefer to judge these people on what they produce and publish as scientific conclusions. These conclusions are already being questioned by other climate scientists and others, and that is where the emphatic victory of reason and debate awaits.

Having said that….

The emails reveal an intransigence towards McIntyre’s request for data and modelling algorithms reveals a lack of confidence in repeatability of their results. This would have been easily resolved by making the data and algorithms available to others, so that any resultant issues raised by McIntyre would have been addressed by others in addition to the CRU. Clearly the us and them culture was so active that they could not even see this alternative.

This and other issues raised is sufficient reasonable cause for a full investigation. UK citizens should be hammering their MP’s over this. If the UK govt is smart (yes, that could be a big if) they will announce a response to this, beyond tracking down the “hacker”. I hope they stay safe for a little while. They might have more to post. Time will tell.

Very mixed feelings on this one. Though I can’t think why it would be a good idea, I half think it’s a set-up. But it makes no sense. If true, it absolutely throws a very damp blanket over the warmenists – and it should be sufficient cause for the UK government to ask the CRU team some very pointed questions. If this is proof that the warmenists have been fiddling the data to create a scare, it’s the ultimate comeback to the “science is settled” sheep. “Not settled; fiddled – see?” *points helpfully*

Still can’t shake the feeling that there’s some kind of zinger built into it, though.

Here’s an interesting quote from Kevin Trenberth in message 1255532032.txt:

On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin

We are writing to encourage hundreds of you to participate in a unique opportunity to
improve the public’s climate knowledge during the week before and the week of this year’s
AGU Fall Meeting.

As you know, the Copenhagen negotiations (Dec. 7-18) are attracting hundreds of journalists
and will result in a proliferation of media articles about climate change. Recently, the
American public’s “belief” in climate change has waned (36% think humans are warming the
earth according to the Pew Center’s October poll), and December’s media blitz provides an
opportunity to reverse the trend.

Your participation is needed to ensure that climate science coverage across media channels
is accurate, fact-based, and nuanced. Provided that enough AGU members sign up to
participate, we will be offering the opportunity for journalists reporting during the
Copenhagen conference to submit their questions on-line and receive a response from a
climate expert before an article goes to press.

“Can`t help but feeling like I`ve just seen a crime on the streets,called the cops, but they ain`t coming, despite numerous calls….. (although living in Syden ee I should be used to it)”

I can’t help but feel this has been the strangest 24 hours! It’s been a sort of overload, and still sinking in for anyone who has been beating against this wall for long enough. Hopefully it’s a big boost for Liberal party members who are having it out with Turnbull right now. As one staffer of a pretty well qualified backbencher put it to me, “it’s really hotting up in Canberra”.

After all, we are here today because Malcolm thought he would just use Kevin’s song sheet. Definition of out there: When Wilson Tuckey was right all along. Not too late to mount an effective campaign though – maybe email some of these guys with support, because they do feel the hits.

Apparently the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre now has a policy not to deal with anyone associated with Climate Audit -

Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:
….
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.

Hopefully I’m still allowed to watch the weather report at the end of the 7 o’clock news.

On a more serious note , I’m considering an FOI request to see if BMRC Melbourne has promulgated such Orwellian drivel internally as corporate policy.

Apparently the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre now has a policy not to deal with anyone associated with Climate Audit -

Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:
….
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.

Apparently the said DJ has gone very quiet on the blogs he usually frequents.

John,
There has been some email traffic in the last few days to a week – quite
a bit really, only a small part about MSU. The main part has been one of
your House subcommittees wanting Mike Mann and others and IPCC
to respond on how they produced their reconstructions and how IPCC
produced their report.
In case you want to look at this see later in the email !

Also this load of rubbish !

This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached

article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertaion terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK IT HAS BUT IT IS ONLY
7 YEARS OF DATA AND IT ISN’T STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

The Australian also alerted me to this blogging ! I think this is the term ! Luckily

I don’t live in Australia.

[1]http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/06/first-look-at-scs-msu-vn52.html
Unlike the UK, the public in Australia is very very naïve about climate change, mostly
because of our governments Kyoto stance, and because there is a proliferation of people
with no climate knowledge at all that are prepared to do the gov bidding. Hence the
general populace is at best confused, and at worst, antagonistic about climate change -
for instance, at a recent rural meeting on drought, attended by politicians and around
2000 farmers, a Qld collegue – Dr Roger Stone – spoke about drought from a climatologist
point of view, and suggested that climate change may be playing a role in Australias
continuing drought+water problem. He was booed and heckled (and unfortunately some
politicians applauded when this happened) – that’s what we’re dealing with due to
columists such as the one I sent to you.

Now to your email. I have seen the latest Mears and Wentz paper (to Science), but
am not reviewing it, thank goodness. I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes,
so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4. Somewhat circular, but I kept to
my usual standards.
The Hadley Centre are working on the day/night issue with sondes, but there are
a lot of problems as there are very few sites in the tropics with both and where both
can be distinguished. My own view if that the sondes are overdoing the cooling
wrt MSU4 in the lower stratosphere, and some of this likely (IPCC definition) affects
the upper troposphere as well. Sondes are a mess and the fact you get agreement
with some of them is miraculous. Have you looked at individual sondes, rather than
averages – particularly tropical ones? LKS is good, but the RATPAC update less so.
As for being on the latest VG analysis, Kostya wanted it to use the surface data.
I thought the model comparisons were a useful aside, so agreed. Ben sent me a paper he’s
submitted with lots of model comparisons that I also thought a useful addition to
the subject.
As for resolving all this (as opposed to the dogfight) I’m hoping that CCSP will
come up with something – a compromise. I might be naive in this respect. I hope
you are still emailing and talking to Carl and Frank. How is CCSP going? Are you still
on schedule for end of August for your open review?

What will be interesting is to see how IPCC pans out, as we’ve been told we can’t use
any article that hasn’t been submitted by May 31. This date isn’t binding, but
Aug 12 is a little more as this is when we must submit our next draft – the one
everybody will be able to get access to and comment upon. The science isn’t
going to stop from now until AR4 comes out in early 2007, so we are going to
have to add in relevant new and important papers. I hope it is up to us to decide
what is important and new. So, unless you get something to me soon, it won’t
be in this version. It shouldn’t matter though, as it will be ridiculous to keep
later drafts without it. We will be open to criticism though with what we do add
in subsequent drafts. Someone is going to check the final version and the
Aug 12 draft. This is partly why I’ve sent you the rest of this email. IPCC,
me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you
know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

Cheers

Phil

IPCC stuff —- just for interest !!!

IPCC ASKED TO COME CLEAN OVER CONTROVERSIAL HOCKEY STICK STUDIES
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, 23 June 2005
[2]http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/062305_Pachauri.pdf
Joe Barton, Chairman
U.S. House of Representatives
June 23, 2005
To: Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri
Chairman
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
C/O IPCC Secretariat
World Meteorological Organization
7 bis Avenue de La Paix
C.P. 2300
Ch- 1211 Geneva 2 Switzerland
Dear Chairman Pachauri:
Questions have been raised, according to a February 14, 2005 article in The Wall Street
Journal, about the significance of methodological flaws and data errors in studies by Dr.
Michael Mann and co-authors of the historical record of temperatures and climate change. We
understand that these studies of temperature proxies (tree rings, ice cores, corals, etc.)
formed the basis for a new finding in the 2001 United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR). This finding – that the increase in
20th century northern hemisphere temperatures is “likely to have been the largest of any
century during the past 1,000 years” and that the “1990s was the warmest decade and 1998
the warmest year” – has since been referenced widely and has become a prominent feature of
the public debate surrounding climate change policy.
However, in recent peer-reviewed articles in Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Energy
& Environment, among others, researchers question the results of this work. As these
researchers find, based on the available information, the conclusions concerning
temperature
histories – and hence whether warming in the 20th century is actually unprecedented -
cannot be
supported by the Mann et. al. studies. In addition, we understand from the February 14
Journal
and these other reports that researchers have failed to replicate the findings of these
studies, in part because of problems with the underlying data and the calculations used to
reach the conclusions. Questions have also been raised concerning the sharing and
dissemination of the data and methods used to perform the studies. For example, according
to the January 2005
Energy & Environment, the information necessary to replicate the analyses in the studies
has not been made fully available to researchers upon request.
The concerns surrounding these studies reflect upon the quality and transparency of
federally
funded research and of the IPCC review process – two matters of particular interest to the
Committee. For example, one concern relates to whether IPCC review has been sufficiently
robust
and independent. We understand that Dr. Michael Mann, the lead author of the studies in
question, was also a lead author of the IPCC chapter that assessed and reported this very
same work, and that two co-authors of the studies were also contributing authors to the
same chapter. Given the prominence these studies were accorded in the IPCC TAR, we seek to
learn more about the facts and circumstances that led to acceptance and prominent use of
this work in the IPCC TAR and to understand what this controversy indicates about the data
quality of key IPCC studies.
In light of the Committee’s jurisdiction over energy policy and certain environmental
issues
in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Committee must have full and accurate information
when considering matters relating to climate change policy. We open this review because the
dispute surrounding these studies bears directly on important questions about the federally
funded work upon which climate studies rely and the quality and transparency of analyses
used
to support the IPCC assessment process. With the IPCC currently working to produce a fourth
assessment report, addressing questions of quality and transparency in the underlying
analyses
supporting that assessment, both scientific and economic, are of utmost importance if
Congress
is eventually going to make policy decisions drawing from this work.
To assist us as we begin this review, and pursuant to Rules X and XI of the U.S. House of
Representatives, please provide the following information requested below on or before July
11,
2005:
1. Explain the IPCC process for preparing and writing its assessment reports, including,
but
not limited to: (a) how referenced studies are reviewed and assessed by the relevant
Working Group; (b) the steps taken by lead authors, reviewers, and others to ensure the
data underlying the studies forming the basis for key findings – particularly proxy and
temperature data – are accurate and up to date; and (c) the IPCC requirements governing
the quality of data used in reports.
2. What specifically did IPCC do to check the quality of the Mann et. al. studies and
underlying data, cited in the TAR? Did IPCC seek to ensure the studies could be
replicated?
3. What is your position with regard to: (a) the recent challenges to the quality of the
Mann
et. al. data, (b) related questions surrounding the sharing of methods and research for
others to test the validity of these studies, and (c) what this controversy indicates about
the data quality of key IPCC studies?
4. What did IPCC do to ensure the quality of data for other prominent historical
temperature
or proxy studies cited in the IPCC, including the Folland et. al. and Jones et. al. studies
that were sources for the graphic accompanying the Mann et. al. graphic in the Summary
for Policy Makers? Are the data and methodologies for such works complete and
available for other researchers to test and replicate?
5. Explain (a) the facts and circumstances by which Dr. Michael Mann served as a lead
author of the very chapter that prominently featured his work and (b) by which his work
became a finding and graphical feature of the TAR Summary for Policymakers.
6. Explain (a) how IPCC ensures objectivity and independence among section contributors
and reviewers, (b) how they are chosen, and (c) how the chapters, summaries, and the full
report are approved and what any such approval signifies about the quality and
acceptance of particular research therein.
7. Identify the people who wrote and reviewed the historical temperature-record portions of
the TAR, particularly Section 2.3, “Is the Recent Warming Unusual?” and explain all
their roles in the preparation of the TAR, including, but not limited to, the specific
roles
in the writing and review process.
8. Given the questions about Mann et. al. data, has the Working Group I or the IPCC made
any changes to specific procedures or policies, including policies for checking the quality
of data, for the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report? If so, explain in detail any such
changes, and why they were made.
9. Does the IPCC or Working Group I have policies or procedures regarding the disclosure
and dissemination of scientific data referenced in the reports? If so, explain in detail
any
such policies and what happens when they are violated.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please contact Peter Spencer of
the Majority Committee staff at (202) 226-2424.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton Chairman Chairman
Ed Whitfield
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
cc: The Honorable John Dingell, Ranking Member
The Honorable Bart Stupak, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
EDITOR’S NOTE: The House of Representatives has also written to National Science Foundation
Director Arden Bement, Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Malcolm K. Hughes, and Dr. Raymond S. Bradley,
requesting information regarding their global warming studies; see “Letters Requesting
Information Regarding Global Warming Studies” at
[3]http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/06232005_1570.htm

* * the word “uncertain” above, misspelled by me as that sentence was all caps on my clipboard for posting at another blog. I retyped part of it. Here it is straight copy-paste:

“This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached

article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only
7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

The Australian also alerted me to this blogging ! I think this is the term ! Luckily

Statements from Hadley Center scientists and apologists represent a clear admission that they don’t mean what they say and don’t say what they mean. They claim their words are “misinterpreted” or that we, as low life mere mortals who are not part of the *sacred* inner circle, don’t understand the “nuances” of their usage. Yet, we are to believe their pronouncements of doom and catastrophe and pay trillions in tribute for our sin of actually using energy from whatever source we can get it.

I am surprised that they haven’t claimed that the hacked files can’t be used against them because they were illegally obtained. Blank out that they were operating with public funds and pretending to do science. All the information should have been available to any seeker from the get go. That they have not made that information freely available is the crime. Hopefully, the court of public opinion will find them guilty as charged and hold them accountable based upon the evidence available no matter how acquired.

2 days ago when the release was fresh, I predicted they would claim statements in the e-mails would be taken “out of context”. That is a standard form of denial. Michael Mann took tree rings from a single tree out of context to create proxies for his “hocky stick”

This drama is bringing in a lot of new faces. Someone made a plea for a list of abbreviations which is a great idea. I’m strapped for time, these below came off the top of my head, can anyone fill them in, and can others suggest ones I’ve missed? I’ll post a page soon to help newbies follow the shorthand in this debate.

#79 FOI (FOIA) and more:
The Russian Hackers, known only as “FOIA” (which now appears to be a reference to the British equivalent of the US Freedom of Information Act), left only one comment on The Air Vent (Open Letter On Climate Legislation, Posted by Jeff Id on November 13, 2009)
to announce his release of his 61-MB ZIP archive. He has never been heard from since, nor has anyone stepped forward claiming to be that person since the story became widely known.
SEE: Comment # 10 ) at http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/

TO: FOIA
You did it. You made many people very, very happy with your visit here and the given link. Luckily Jeff Id discovered it immediately: “This is the biggest news ever broken here. hunter said November 20, 2009 at 12:01 am , „Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. God bless you.“ And at : http://www.examiner.com Terry Hurlbut (Nov19; 9:42 PM) said: „Commentary on all the blogs involved has been brisk, except, oddly enough, at The Air Vent, where only seven comments have been received.“
Allow me to assume you did it intentionally with regard to the subject OPEN LETTER. That would at least make me very happy, as it would be a clear indication that there are other person out (at minimum one), which would agree with me that a science is nuisance if it is not able and willing to define in a reasonable scientific manner what it is talking about. That the talking about a definition on CLIMATE should not be taken lightly, is indicated in my previous comment. If a nonsense term is used by science it is not only misleading the simple people, but also shows that they do not understand what they are talking about. That is the real tragic of all the talking about the CO2 greenhouse gases since the James Hansen’s AGW claim before the US Senate in 1988. They stare in the air, without knowing where they are going to. OK. Currently, presumably only you, (few other ?) and I know. That should change, and your kind appearance here may have been a help, hopefully, for which you deserves my highest appreciation, and sincere thanks.
Gratefully yours
AB

#79 FOI (FOIA) for : US Freedom of Information (Act), the Russian Hackers (if it had not been insider)seems to have a big sense of humor.

Too right, other outlsts elsewhere running it. I reckon they don’t know what to do with it just yet. It lies way outside of the narrative they have kept to. All the old stagers of the press – Kelly, Oakes, Grattan etc have fallen for this. Denial, then gradual extrication I’d say. If I was Laurie Oakes trying to get out of this one I’d keep my head down for now. All the work being done by people like us anyway – what does that say?

Sunday morning, and still not a peep in any of the online newspaper sites I usually read, including the Sydney Morning Herald….Seems there is another sort of denial going on now.

You really can’t expect “full coverage” on this issue due to “Biased Media” in the works..Majority are in and represent this position. In America, Fox News is starting to open up and taking a lot of flack for it. Sure, in time they start popping up with little articles but “always” promoting “AGW” side of the issue.

Diverging a bit from the discussion, today we have the following from Doctor Al Gore’s Science Class:

“People think about geothermal energy – when they think about it at all – in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees …

Wow that’s hot enough to cook turkeys, isn’t it!

It also reminds me of a quote from logician Bertrand Russell, on the foundations of mathematics:

“Counting remains the most basic mathematical operation, but only because of our physical realm. If beings lived on the Sun, where everything is gaseous, the most basic branch of mathematics would be topology.”

And what about the radioactivity down there? In perth, geothermal research relies on decaying beds of thorium and uranium. They’ll drill down to it to run a turbine, but build a reactor – sacrilege. Basically nuclear power is fine as long as gaia provides the heat. It wouldn’t be in the “Gore” range though.

I’ve been through a lot of these emails. My gut feeling is that they are genuine. You just can’t make this stuff up. I cannot preclude the possibility of a word being changed here or there, but this is simply astounding.

I have worked in a scientific laboratory and there was pressure for funding which always resulted in politics. But this is nothing short of scientific fraud in my humble opinion. Not to mention the destruction of information to avoid FOI requests.

There are a lot of journo’s who would rather drink poison than sabotage Copenhagen(even though India already did). There is also such a lot of daylight between what they have been reporting so far, and what actually needs to be said about this episode, that they might edge their way in. I’m hoping it will go from the tentative, brief pieces we see now to serious journalism over the coming weeks. Wouldn’t that be something. Don’t expect any cooperation from British govt but.

Either way, the Alarmists are entrenched and if the right “Strings” are pulled things should start rolling but there will be a fight. Too much money is involved as Joanne has just posted earlier on this site.

Towit…..@ Brian Lots of sage advice needed!… have you had time to get a good handle on the salient damning parts. reason being I`m gonna hit talkback radio in sydney from Alan jones onwards. so I need grabs that the undecided and indoctrinated can grasp in 10 -15 secs that damn these hoaxters with their own chapter and verse… Cheers Mark

Matty, Transparancy is what happened!, non consensual but a highly transparent gift which we must not squander! behold not just the spoils of pandoras box but emails , archives,tricks and the revealing esoteric machinations and private thoughts from the mandarin class protagonists of this devious superbly crafted master plan of unequaled consequence. It`s war in all but name.. Take a quick snapshot of the powerful entities and most unlikley bedfellows that make up the protagonists. The hard Left, the new wet right, research `gun` scientists for hire, the UN autocracy club fed, Religions, indoctrinated youth, The BANKS, the stock exchanges,main stream media. They can see the top of the mountain and the peeps that gel here and other such forums are all that stand between them and their glittering prize. If a new world agenda is entreatied we will have set humanitarian endeavour back to the dark ages of early religious proliferation. Never give up never give in to the new world order…. Luvie!

Uberalarmist George Negus reporting live from Copenhagen tonight at 2030 hrs on SBS. Will have a beer and listen intently to his earnest words. Given the events of the last two days, might have a little chuckle as well.

I’m not surprised that Steve McIntyre features in these leaked e-mails. Steve stands for transparency, reproducibility & availability of data & has been a constant thorn in the side of these advocates for years.

Unfortunately his blog has been slow because of all the traffic & he has been forced to blog on a mirror site:

See the post “CRU Refuses FOI Request” in the above link. Steve thinks the CRU leak came from a whistle blower rather than a hacker. On 18 Nov 2009 Steve received a letter from UEA turning down his FOI appeal regarding CRU. This letter was dated 13 Nov 2009. As stated by Joanna in her post above on 17 Nov 2009 at 9.57 pm the first public notice of the 63 MB CRU file came onto Jeff Id’s blog, by a poster called “FOIA”.

“We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it”.

The files contain e-mails up to & including 12 Nov 2009, the day before the letter Steve received from UEA was dated.

Kevin Trenberth knows the AGW effect is not there, he can’t explain it, but he feels he needs to – otherwise, nobody will believe it.

He attempts to make it work by saying that natural effects somehow dominated AGW, then realises he can’t, because he has already claimed that AGW “dominates everything.”

The only thing that surprises me is that Kevin is willing to recognise that the AGW effect is not seen for some years; Kevin is Junk Scientist Extraordinaire, cooking up the most RIDICULOUS radiation balance imaginable ust to make AGW work.

Release of these messages means nothing to Kevin, and it means nothing to the British government either; for there is nothing in the world that will stop their AGW showboat – not even the lack of AGW

Unfortunately, I think your comments are dead on. Worse yet it appears to me that the US media is giving this story little coverage beyond noting the hacking a few files, which is no longer big news since there are no entertainment celebrities nor money directly involved. The importance of the corruption exposed is mostly ignored by folks that are more interested in what is playing at the local movie house or about what congress is doing.

The scientists involved have played this brilliantly, by issuing few comments except to say that, “Yes, those are real emails.” A strong defense would likely raise awareness via a stronger spotlight on the matter.

In short, it will cause very few waves outside the blogs like this one.

I’ve just heard Joe Hockey on 2GB. He is as dumb as a plank. Banged on about how there is no major Austalian interest group against the ETS and that business just wants the whole matter settled (so they can get on with trading carbon credits presumeably).

Then he goes on about how he wants to save jobs… and… and fight for motherhood. Sheesh, to think this buffoon is thought of as leadership material for the Liberals.

Here in the US, the extreme liberals who demand cap and trade call anybody who doesn’t want cap and trade “un-American.”

So I guess I’m “un-American.” Maybe a Communist or something.

[Really, I think Cap and Trade is something that could only be designed by the old Soviet Politboro. If it was, there was a time when every member of Congress would be repelled by the idea simply because the Communists wanted it. Maybe we could get rid of Cap and Trade by having some extreme Islamic terror group endorse it.]

Ole Rupie’s let out one of his dogs, see the 150+ comments none of them favourable to the CRU team. Of course, an article such as this wouldn’t bother discussing any science, but as people have been pointing out to me, “this isn’t about science”.

They go straight for the emotional angle and “expert ‘cheered’ by Aussie’s death”. Sensationalism sells papers and Fairfax’s pockets are drying up faster than Newscorp because Fairfax pretends to have principles and Newscorp knows how to whip up an audience. Also note that WSJ covered it with just a touch of science for those highbrow business audiences. Your future propaganda is in good hands, don’t panic.

HERE IS A LIST OF SOME LIBERAL SENATORS EMAIL ADDRESSES I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND.
EMAIL THEM AND LET THEM KNOW YOU DO NOT WANT THEM TO VOTE FOR THIS TREASONOUS ETS(Employment Termination Scheme/Extra Tax System)!!!!!

I’ve been away from news for a few days and was happy to see this when I returned. It even appeared in my local paper, although a more prominent article was about the nasty CO2 emitted by oil refineries and cement factories. Now, all we need is someone with a conscious at the IPCC to leak something. I’ll bet that right about now there are many other people who have said similar things in email exchanges and who are now sitting on pins and needles. It’s funny that while I was away, I was talking to a broker friend of mine if he knew of any investment vehicles for shorting carbon offsets.

Dear Tel, and others who are thinking that using hacked emails is somehow unfair: 1st – we don’t know that they were hacked, and 2nd – If someone ever tries to slit your throat and steal your purse, please remember, don’t try to fight them using the Marquis of Queensbury rules. If even some of this is true, it’s obviously not been a fair fight (or argument) from the start. Kick them in the you know where, stomp their throat when they’re down, and move one.

No organisation has any more integrity than its management; in this case Phil Jones, Ken Briffa, and Trenberth set the example for Hadley Centre – and there was no oversight of what they were doing.

They were in fact cheered on in what they were doing by American organisations (NASA Goddard, Livermore, and others)

- so no one at Hadley assumed any more integrity than Hadley’s management circle.

Hadley had become too arrogant and powerful, all but managing the IPCC outcome. They thought they wouldn’t get caught.

They got caught.

If they did something like this in the first place, the chances of them assuming responsibility at this point are nill.

These people will do nothing more than blame the “criminal” who “stole private email that didn’t mean anything anyway.”

I have it from a source that friends of Hadley are contacting columnists to disregard the episode and dismiss it by blaming people like “swift boat” Marc Morano for causing the “non-existent scandal” in the first place.

But I am confident that the average citizen knows that their instincts about AGW and the people behind it were right all along – and the episode merely confirms what they already suspected.

I’ve been skimming through some of this stuff. One of the most interesting is a document named HARRY_READ_ME.txt

I don’t have the background to understand all of this programming, bu this appears to be a running commentary of a sometimes very frustrated data “manipulator” working with recent CRU datasets. I found a number of interesting comments. I’m sure those more knowledgeable than I can find more.

READ ME for Harry’s work on the CRU TS2.1/3.0 datasets, 2006-2009!

Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape archives at UEA) and never recreated it. This hasn’t mattered too much, because the synthetic cloud grids had not been discarded for 1901-95, and after 1995 sunshine data is used instead of cloud data anyway.

But, (Lord how many times have I used ‘however’ or ‘but’ in this file?!!), when you look in the program you find that the coefficient files are called:…

ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently – I have no memory of this at all – we’re not doing observed rain days! It’s all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I’m going to need
conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF
happens to station counts?

OH F*** THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m
hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.

I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can’t get far enough
into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and
semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog.
I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections – to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.

So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations? Well, how about fixdupes.for? That would
be perfect – except that I never finished it, I was diverted off to fight some other fire. Aarrgghhh.

I – need – a – database – cleaner.

What about the ones I used for the CRUTEM3 work with Phil Brohan? Can’t find the bugger!! Looked everywhere,
Matlab scripts aplenty but not the one that produced the plots I used in my CRU presentation in 2005. Oh,
F*** IT. Sorry. I will have to WRITE a program to find potential duplicates.

The results are depressing. For Paris, with 237 years, +/- 20% of the real value was possible with even 40 values. Windter months were more variable than Summer ones of course. What we really need, and I don’t think it’ll happen of course, is a set of metrics (by latitude band perhaps) so that we have a broad measure of the acceptable minimum value count for a given month and location. Even better, a confidence figure that allowed the actual standard deviation comparison to be made with a looseness proportional to the sample size.

Matt B
Noticed your comments at WUWT defending the indefensible. It seems that you and many other supporters of AGW have placed dogma above morality.
Fortunately this does not apply to the general public. I communicate with a number of people, non scientists like myself, who unlike me support AGW. To their credit they have followed the story and are appalled not only by the conduct of the key players but by failure of their peers to hold them responsible for their actions.

Actually Allen at WUWT I was commenting on a particular quoted email that was totally inconsequential. Rather than defending the indefensible I was wondering why, with such good fodder in the emails, that that paritular exchange was being discussed. My assumption now is that many of the readers at WUWT are rabid AGW-opponents rather than rational human beings.

Carl, I would not fight for the prize of my purse, the taxman has already cut a big hole in the bottom.

Mike, I’m so glad I’m not Harry. I’d reckon Harry didn’t see much of that grant money, and now he will be blacklisted (no doubt the in-people can figure out exactly who Harry is).

If the journals had even come close to demanding data integrity and archival standards then Harry wouldn’t have been in such a bad situation. I strongly suspect that the CRU results are completely unreproducible, even by the researchers themselves.

Hopefully the majority of scientific publication moves onto WWW pages and self-publication and the entire journal industry atrophies and fades into the past. It serves no purpose any more. More than anything else, this whole sad episode just shows how little the current peer review process is worth.

I agree, neither would I, Tel; that’s why I also mentioned your life. Would you fight for your life & liberty, Tel? Because that’s the bottom line with all this. Elitists, who want to be able to tell you and me how to live, use junk science to point to a crisis which only their ideas can remedy. Why do you think governments around the world are jumping onto the cap & trade bandwagon? This involves a lot more than just peer review, my friend.

At least you are in touch with reality on that one point. I suggest being very careful with such things. Letting one point of reality into your mind is like letting your camel put his nose into your tent. Just as the camel will soon fill your tent, reality can flood your mind with what actually is rather than what you want it to be or what the sacred *other* says it should be. Do you really want that to happen?